June 26, 2012

This is what you reap when you adopt Republican policy propositions

The individual mandate IS the Republican healthcare reform proposal -- from a few years ago. Obama's people apparently thought Republicans would be boxed in when confronted with their own approach, completely underestimating their willingness to perform (and the public's willingness to accept) a complete reversal with zero explanation. It was their idea, but now it's the Worst Thing Ever, plus ... COMMUNISM!

Could the mandate work? Sure, and we'd be far better off with the whole package than without it, but the individual mandate is a patented Republican gift to private insurance, which is the core of the entire healthcare problem. Profit motive and life-and-death human services just don't work. We can regulate them as much as we want, but at the end of the day, they'll still be trying to give the least care for the most money.

It's a classic triangulation fail. Instead of rope-a-doping Republican rhetoric while still currying favor with rich corporations as the administration planned, now we might lose absolutely necessary and beneficial healthcare reform because we freed Republicans to decry their own tacky plan to guarantee insurance company profit in perpetuity.

Maybe at some point here, we'll learn to stop picking up Republican turds and trying to convince ourselves they taste good.

June 19, 2012

I don't think the dehumanization argument is that mysterious.

Full disclosure: Straight, have seen enough porn to know what it is, and that it doesn't appeal to me.

I scan this issue when it pops up from time to time, and it seems like people are continually talking past each other.

Most of the objection (to the objections to porn) seems to come from a free speech / you can't ban that point of view. That's deliberately obtuse. It's not a puritanical argument suggesting sex is inherently bad or demeaning. It's critical argument suggesting that bad, demeaning porn is bad and demeaning.

It's a cultural issue, and it's largely to do with male / female power dynamics. Respectfully, I think it's a little glib for a gay man to say he doesn't see what they're talking about vis a vis gay porn. You wouldn't. That's not the issue. Men are equals in our society in a way that men and women are not. Whether they prefer men or women, men outside of prison don't worry about being perceived as a piece of sexual toilet paper to be used and discarded. But what I think they're talking about is that a huge proportion of (hetero) porn not only comes from exactly that place, but celebrates the fact. No humanity. No emotion. Porn itself makes an argument that sex is an empty, meaningless itch to be scratched, violently and mindlessly.

I say what "they" are talking about, because I don't propose to have the answer to all of this either -- it's complicated. Certainly puritanical bans on sexual content of any kind won't fly in any kind of open society.

But that doesn't mean there's not a huge point to be made about the crass, juvenile, soulless depictions of sex, and women in particular, that make up the bulk of "porn." Is that somehow not true? Or, are people not supposed to point it out, because even shitty, animalistic depictions of sex must get a pass from everyone, lest we become too repressive?

Bullshit. There's a lot of bad, ugly porn in the world, a lot of it insulting and demeaning to women in particular, and people who care about free speech and open discussions of sexuality ought to be helping point that out, not standing on some detached notion that we have to tread lightly so as not to cramp anyone's style.

We can make qualitative distinctions about things -- that's what progressives are supposed to be good at. It's not "porn: yes or no?" It's about bad art informed by bad ideas. Art tells stories, and if those stories rely on debasing stereotypes or a celebration of human cruelty or depredation, we ought to talk about that.

May 14, 2012

Religious belief is as germane to politics as religious groups cause it to be.

JFK took great pains to talk about the fact that his religious beliefs wouldn't be the basis of his decisions as President. This was of course because Catholicism is not the preferred American brand of Christianity, and his opponents raised the specter of him taking orders from the Vatican.

But our politicians seldom make that distinction anymore. A lot of them argue the opposite -- from Huckabee saying that the Bible takes precedence over the Constitution, to Santorum promising to drag us back to the good ole 1500's. I think Obama has expressed secularist restraint, but carefully, because of the huge Evangelical drumbeat we have now insisting that we are a "Christian nation."

What is Romney's take on this? Doesn't he hold some kind of rank in the Mormon Church? Is it not more likely than not that LDS leaders have his ear? And the Mormons don't stay out of politics either. They have proudly been a huge influence in stifling gay rights. How would be unreasonable to question the political influence of a religious organization with explicit, extreme views that is ALSO heavily active in trying to influence American law?

It is and always should be fair to question whether a candidate's ties to a politically active organization impact his or her positions. If religious groups want to be left out of the political limelight, they need to actually ... stay out of the political limelight. Can't have it both ways.

Moreover, as religious groups in American politics become more openly fundamentalist, and continue to demand an influence on policy, it's fair to question those beliefs themselves. LDS, like other fundamentalist groups, doesn't tolerate metaphorical or theoretical views of religious doctrine. It insists that bizarre, supernatural occurrences and rituals are literally true, and literally required by "God," to the point where defying the church can lead to complete ostracizing from all other church members, including family.

We always give these beliefs a pass, somehow, because of a cultural preference for the dominant religions. But we wouldn't consider for a moment a political candidate from some non-preferred sect who believed in some OTHER magic plates or some other virgin birth or some other sacred undergarments. We'd question their sanity and their judgment and laugh them off the national stage.

So which is it? Do we want candidates who put religious thinking first, including magical beliefs and ancient thoughts on what constitutes moral behavior, or are we going to insist that whomever we appoint to lead will please remember that we are a nation of secular laws, not supernatural beliefs?

Candidates for office have a choice. They can declare that they put secular law first, period, in which case their spiritual beliefs are irrelevant. Or they can claim their beliefs or their church are part of their qualifications, or try to fudge the issue (as Romney seems to be attempting) in which case those beliefs and those churches ought to be examined under the same microscope as the rest of their personality.

May 11, 2012

There is a saying about character being revealed in how we treat

those from whom we have the least to gain and the least to fear.

We know what Romney will say or do when political victory is the goal -- anything. From pro-choice to "fertilized eggs are people," if you've got something he wants, he'll follow you anywhere, smiling and ingratiating. But when he can't be threatened or punished, he inflicts pain on those in no position to fight back. Thinks it's his right. Finds it amusing.

There's something, too, about our political philosophies. The Ryans and Romneys of the world argue we should gauge the quality of our country by how well we treat the rich and powerful, not by how we treat the disenfranchised, poor, and powerless. Better that 200 millionaires don't pay a penny more in taxes than a million children have an education. If dogs don't to be strapped to roofs with their stomachs imploding, they should go to Harvard Business school, make some contacts.

There's something insidious and cold in this man's gaze. He's worse than the feckless boob he appears.

April 10, 2012

I'll bite. Pronouncements of religious faith in American politics are primarily disingenuous.

Obama is far from the worst example, but he famously invited a full-blown RW Christian extremist to speak. His other comments on his faith, while doubtless true in a general sense, absolutely require a large grain of salt in the context of a fanatically extremist conservative American movement, gathered under the banner of Christianity, that welcomed him with immediate accusations of being a Muslim, and the unspoken suggestion that no Muslim would ever be fit to be President. He, and every other political leader in the country, is constantly under pressure to prove he is sufficiently Christian, goes to church enough, puts the right picture on his Christmas card, doesn't commit the sin of referring to the Christmas season or the (pagan) tree decoration with the overly inclusive term "holidays," etc., etc. etc.

Respectfully, I hope this OP is not an attempt to conflate criticism of religion, which more relevant than ever now, with the tidal wave of religiously justified attacks on women and gay people, with an attack on Obama, and thus to bring it under the umbrella of things not permitted on DU. That would be both sad and incredibly silly.

Back to the point though, it's well past time for more full-throated critique of the role of, in particular, the Christian religion in American culture, and politics. We have developed this very strange, inherently contradictory game, in which anyone who would hold office is put under tremendous pressure to claim devotion to philosophical traditions which, if taken literally -- would be insane.

Why is that okay?

If we were to remove the protective cloak of tradition, and consider the qualifications for national political office -- or even, say, dogcatcher -- of someone who believed the entire world was created by, is in the control of, and has every iota of ethical behavior defined by, some OTHER otherworldly being besides Yahweh / Allah, the conversation would be brief, defined by uncomfortable laughter, and likely followed with a psychological exam.

What we insist on is lip service. No one wants a leader who really believes in virgin births or mystical healing, or prancing devils waiting in the afterlife to torture unbelievers with fire.

No sane person would vote for anyone who genuinely believes our lives should be dictated by 2,000 year-old stories of magical beings who enjoy sacrificial bulls, murder thousands of children when angry, order that women should be subservient to men, or that moral conduct includes what foods a person eats, what clothes they wear, or how or with which other consenting adults they choose to have sex. NO ONE.

It's the Lie Agreed Upon. I don't mean religion itself. There are sincere believers who lead sincere lives and sincerely try to do good, all centered around their faith. I don't agree with critics who would deny that. Normal Christianity, practiced the way normal, secularly minded people practice it, does not require or even deserve ridicule.

None of this is to say incivility toward DUers or any other typical people of faith -- the ones that don't define their beliefs as simply a justification to humiliate or destroy anyone or anything they find culturally distasteful -- is okay. There is plenty of room for any number of beliefs.

But those beliefs are not immune to criticism, including the criticism that they are fully nonsensical.

Not when they are used as a cudgel, over and over and over again, to attack and destroy people and support every heinous political agenda from homophobia to forced vaginal ultrasounds. For Christ's sake.

So long as the public discussion of Christianity in American politics and culture is dominated by the Santorums and Popes of the world, yes, vitriol, satire, and derision are going to be part of the conversation. It's necessary, decent, and more than fully deserved. If it offends normal churchgoers who aren't screaming at the top their lungs about zygotes being people, or gays and Muslims NOT being people, then they just aren't paying enough attention.

I think everyone understands that President Obama is one of many public figures who seem unable to disentangle themselves from this hypocrisy. It is enough, for now, if he will simply oppose as any decent person would, the indecent things continually proposed in the name of Christianity in this country.

It can, however, be done. JFK seemed to have had a pretty good handle on the way religion and politics should work in a sane, secular society. I question whether Obama or any national political figure say this now, given that "separation of church and state" has become another in the growing list flat-out denials of reality embraced by American "Christian Conservatives:"

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

March 13, 2012

Being a good parent fits into purpose. I've yet to see anything pointless or purposeless in Nature.

Agree re: "destiny" and so forth. These are grandiose, human-centric ego dreams of what's going on. This kills me about Abrahamic religion. But I don't equate the lack of those sorts of pat ideas with utter meaninglessness.

In addition to a lot of nothing, we're surrounded by a whole lot of fancy stuff. I think the notion that it's all some kind of random hiccup would be the rare hypothesis. I don't mean us -- humans could easily be just what sprouted here best -- but I think it'd be a weird conclusion to decide that the 9999(etc)% of existence that we don't understand is meaningless, just because we haven't managed to figure it all out in a few thousand years.

Just my take, but it's important to me. I don't like conflating atheism with nihilism or "nothing-ism." That seems presumptuous and irrational to me, i.e., if religion doesn't explain everything, there must be "nothing." There's not nothing. There is Something. The fact that it's not a trite fable about the massive importance of humankind and who we have sex with and whether we eat pork makes it more meaningful, not less.

As you say, our lives can mean something to US, first of all. But as for whatever the big picture may be, we're obviously in it, and nothing we know of in our universe is without cause or effect. So, we come from somewhere, and we impact something. That takes "meaningless" off the table in my view.

March 11, 2012

Atheism isn't nihilism, for God's sake.

And there's nothing about not buying anyone's transparently bogus bill of goods about Sky Fathers watching your diet and your sex life that's "bleak," either. Nor is the lack of literal truth in stories about deities an indication of a "purposeless" universe.

On the contrary, existence is immense, fascinating mystery. Life is a shockingly rare opportunity to Do Things and Think About Stuff. Most particles floating around out there are inert. Sure, life is short, and there's the misery and so forth, but there's obviously plenty to enjoy, and at least it's a chance to participate.

Think about that. You could be inert particles.

Saying life is bleak once its stripped of the notion that it's all about pleasing a superbeing whose ideas bear a curious similarity to some pretty backward stone-age desert dwellers doesn't make any more sense than saying there's no reason to act ethically without a set of instructions literally carved in stone, and the threat of hellfire if you don't follow them.

How small would your mind have to be to think THAT?

February 23, 2012

There is no "religious freedom" to hurt people.

Enough of the free ride for any heinous notion that can be found in someone's holy book. This idea, this notion that women are permitted to have sex to make babies for husbands, and otherwise are to be shamed and humiliated and attacked is EVIL.

If God said it, God is evil. If a political candidate supports it, they are promoting evil. It's not any less so because it's a traditional evil or a theological evil. If this idea is in your book, your book is evil. If it's the core of your religion, your religion is evil.

People can use birth control, period. Women may abort a pregnancy. Whomever is tasked with providing healthcare, be it employers or insurance companies or the government, must provide access to ALL healthcare.

Enough of these bryl-creamed peverts and their knowing smirks and sweaty palms and bullshit ancient texts.

Fuck. Them.

February 18, 2012

I think men have a different role in supporting feminism.

Feminism isn't our movement, any more than supporting equal rights for different ethnicities would make a white man a "black activist," or supporting gay rights makes a straight man a gay activist.

These are cultural positions which have activist movements because the people in them need to stop being defined and lead and corralled by the majority or culturally dominant group.

I think men have a right to have a take on the academic or sociological side of things and to engage as equals with minority or oppressed groups in discussions on social theory, patriarchy, etc. They are not incapable of understanding that there are points of view they can't fully appreciate, but that need space to be heard.

Men also have, or should have, a pro-woman point of view that is uniquely their own. Men are capable, at least, of possessing a profound appreciation for women that requires their continued physical, emotional, and spiritual well being. This requires, among other things, supporting feminism.

But men aren't needed to lead, define, validate, or limit feminism itself. Men especially don't need to watchdog to make sure feminism doesn't "get out hand," or to make sure some sliver of male privilege isn't whittled away too much. It's a point of view men need to support, but which they are not an actual part of.

Seems like that's kind of the point.